LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SOCNET Archives


SOCNET Archives

SOCNET Archives


SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SOCNET Home

SOCNET Home

SOCNET  November 2006

SOCNET November 2006

Subject:

Re: Autopoiesis and Networks (before: Help Conceptualizing an Issue--Kinetic SNA)

From:

Ingbert Floyd <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Ingbert Floyd <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:27:37 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (214 lines)

*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

I am new to this list, so forgive me (and let me know) if this is off
topic, but the current discussion has brought up an issue that I'm
currently trying to understand.  I'm curious about the use of metaphor
and models in research and how they lead to understanding.  A strict
epistemological interpretation might hold that even models of atoms
are a metaphor on some level.  First, we can never know if our models
of what is out there actually correspond to what exists.  This is
brought home by studying the history of science, say physics, where
the model of an atom has changed over time as new evidence has
accumulated, or biology, where the idea of a species has changed
radically over time.  Second, however, the models that we use are
always on some level a symbolic representation which we use to
understand and predict the world we live in.   Thus, we can still use
Newtonian mechanics to predict aspects of the world, even though we
know it has problems. Yet these models all seem to be in some sense
"strict" in their representation of what exists in the physical world.
 The models that were being discussed by Dr. Lanham and others, on the
other hand, seemed to me as more evocative of certain intuitions which
we as humans have about the world and how it works, in order to create
a conceptual framework that may be useful in teasing out processes and
relations that otherwise might go unnoticed.  These intuitive models
may be useful for prediction as well, but I can't escape the feeling
that they are qualitatively different in some sense from the models
used in physics.

With the "Kinetic SNA" model, for example, the "melting" of "bonds"
seems to be a very abstract metaphor for a whole series of complex
interactions that may be happening.  And, I believe this is true for
more standard applications of SNA: for example, when a researcher
considers the set of communications that one person makes that are
directed to another as a single directed edge between two nodes in a
network--i.e., using ANT terminology, a series of complex events have
been black-boxed or fixed within the model into a single
representation.  This feels very different from the physicist's
black-boxing of a phenomenon of a quantum of negative electric charge
into an electron, or even the black-boxing that takes place when
talking about the nucleus of an atom, which has similar complexities
(protons, neutrons, maybe even gravitons? not to mention quarks...).
My question is, if it exists, what is this difference?  Is it a matter
of precision of predictions?  Does it feel different because the
black boxes are more easily decomposed into their component parts
(also black boxes)? Is it because the component parts have a different
qualitative feel? Or is it as some have put forth (Jonathan Grudin I
believe is one) that we just don't have the quality of data about the
"social" phenomena we study which physicists and biologists have for
their fields of study?  If the latter is the case, then what are the
features or affordances of the descriptive accounts of the world which
were made by naturalists which allowed Darwin to be able to develop
his theory of evolution?  Or allowed chemists to develop the periodic
table of elements?  And do the descriptions of human behavior we are
currently creating have those same features/affordances?  For example,
long before Tycho Brahe and Kepler, astronomers knew what kind of data
they needed to make more accurate predictions, they just didn't have
the equipment (telescopes) they needed in order to collect the data
they needed.

Now, I understand that the degree to which a model corresponds
"strictly" to existing phenomena is probably more a gradient than a
dichotomy, but what are the variables which describe the gradient?
When we talk about species of seagulls along the arctic circle where
gulls in North America can't breed with gulls in Europe, but any gull
population can breed with the gull population immediately next to it,
our variables are the individual birds, their genetic makeup, their
geographic location, etc.

Or is this even a relevant question?  Does it matter whether a model
corresponds in any way to "reality" as long as it can successfully
make predictions?  My intuitions tell me yes, because many scientists
will reject certain models such as a model that explains gravity by
postulating the existence of invisible apes who are continuously
pushing objects together, and hanging onto one-another with their
feet.  It may be true that what we accept as being a good model and
what we reject as being a bad one may be culturally determined, but
usually cultures have good reasons for the rules that they make, even
if those reasons are not explicit or widely recognized within the
culture (except on an intuitive basis).  So what are the good reasons
we have for promoting Occam's Razor?

Ingbert Floyd
PhD Student
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

On 11/10/06, Ryan Lanham <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>
> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of Paul B. Hartzog
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:27 PM
>
> >Saying that social systems do not live is a huge ontological leap.
> >Serious complexity scholars debate various kinds of superorganism
> >social theories.
>
> For me, dualities of life and non-life create boundaries.  Usually those
> boundary objects do not add much to a discussion.  They exist to
> reinforce a given ontology rather than attempting to increase commons.
>
> The difference between an organization and a network rests in the
> propensity of networks to be boundary-less.  Organizations emphasize
> identity.  Identity is a vehicle of ontology.  You strengthen identity
> by reinforcing boundary objects at the edges of ontologies.  Recall that
> boundary objects are contested items that are mutually recognized at
> some functional level by actants who apply differing ontologies to a
> situation.  Thus, the Golan Heights is a boundary object between Syrian
> and Israeli ontologies.  Both know what it is at one level, but disagree
> how its relationships are structured at another.
>
> Social movements, it seems to me, are attempts are transferring action
> into identity.  They form ontologies.  The work of researchers is also
> to knit ontologies.  It is the extension of relationships, facts, and
> ideas that can be applied to situations without raising a level of
> cognitive dissonance.
>
> An e-journal is a new attempt to circumvent boundary objects associated
> with print production, editorial expense, and so forth.
>
> It seems to me that in information terms, a boundary is a field where
> relationship potentials of certain types are neutralized or
> counter-reacted.  In computer networks, boundaries are routers or cable
> wrappings, etc.  In semantic terms, a boundary is an inflexible
> interpretation of a symbol.  The cross means THIS.  The Star of David
> means THAT.  Artists often create dissonance by playing with strong
> ontologies that are not readily conscious in human interactions.
> Dissonance serves to value or devalue an ontology.  How much dissonance
> occurs in situations is the stock price of an ontology.  Less
> dissonance, the more likely I am to keep applying a given ontology.  The
> more important an identity ontology, the less likely I am to enter into
> situations where I might feel dissonance.
>
> My argument is that post-Weberian organizations are generally tending
> toward lower identity ontologies.  That is because flexibility and
> innovation is becoming biologically more important than stability and
> control.  In other words, bureaucracies are giving way to
> actor-networks.  I study this in relationship to Community Foundations
> (I have a working paper if anyone is interested I am giving next week at
> ARNOVA).
>
> I believe that it is a general trend in all highly interactive (i.e.
> trans-boundary) environments.  I borrow this idea from ecology in
> relationship to species diversity (e.g. how corridor ecology works...)
>
> I don't mean this to be shameless self-promotion so much as an attempt
> to move the conversations a bit away from continual reinforcement of
> ontologies toward attempts to find commons (Marilyn Strathern's 2004
> Commons and Borderlands on that point.)
>
> What do I read on this?
>
> Anthropology of globalizations (e.g. Appadurai, Aihwa Ong, Charles
> Tilly, Mol, etc.)
>
> Ecology and systems biology...especially Island Press-like Ecology
> policy--e.g. Holling and Gunderson's version of Panarchy, Corridor
> Ecology, Island Biodiversity research, etc.
>
> Actor-network-theory of categories and borders (e.g. Marilyn Strathern,
> Bowker and Star, Latour, etc.)  I am particularly interested in the
> notion of decentering humans in networks.
>
> SNA--especially of the ilk that follows on Harrison White's insights.  I
> am particular interested in SNA as a discussion of crossing boundaries,
> borders, cultural lines, civic elites, etc.
>
> Experimental and evolutionary economics--because they are attempting to
> get at motivations--which is necessary to understand identity formation
> values and the value of leaving identities and moving toward new
> territories (both real and intellectual).
>
> International affairs and social theories related to post-Westphalian
> policy matters--the decline of nations and nation-states due to
> migrations, etc.
>
> Revolutions, diffusions and innovations of all sorts--both agent-based
> models and cultural ones.
>
> I personally think all this could be organized (problematic) under
> post-Weberian organizational theory, but it is more important to
> maintain commons than identity--my very point.
>
> I am always interested in where these discussions are occurring because
> it is very hard to know how to not be tied to discipline on these issues
> which, given the above, is obviously highly problematic.  Any help,
> pointers, side-comments or co-travelers appreciated.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
> network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
> an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
> UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.
>


-- 

==========================================
Check out the unofficial GSLIS Wiki:

http://www.gslis.org/

Tell me what you think, if you find it useful, or if you have any
ideas for how to organize it better.  And if you feel comfortable
doing so, I heartily encourage you to contribute content!

This GSLIS is the Graduate School of Library and Information Science
at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008, Week 62
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager